Question #1
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees Americans the right to speak freely and petition the government for redress of grievances. The congress wrote and the President signed the Can Spam Act of 2003 which specifically avoided any censorship of political email, leaving the First Amendment the controlling law regarding free speech and the right to contact the government using email.

"Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum. 

The importance of the Internet as the "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," requires that the courts perpetually uphold the freedom of speech." *
* http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=267

Do you acknowledge that government officials, elected and appointed, are not required to respond to unsolicited political citizen email, postal mail and phone calls, are not required to read or listen to unsolicited political citizen email, postal mail and phone calls, but they are required to ACCEPT - UNCENSORED - unsolicited political email, postal mail and phone calls from citizens?

Sam Adams: http://www.samforpdx.com
Yes. At the time of public confirmation every appointee to a pubic board or commission will be told that a line of communication must be maintained between the appointee and the public. No chairperson or staff member will be permitted to censor written communication between citizen and public board member. An email address and a postal address by which every board member can be contacted directly will be posted on all web sites of public boards and commissions. All members of my staff will be required to read the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution before their first day of employment.

Analysis: Grade A
Excellent choice of staff training material.


Nick Fish: http://www.gofish2004.com/
No. When I was HAP VP I loyally supported Howard Shapiro's decision to censor citizen access to the HAP board and by extension to all of Portland's public boards and commissions. When citizens try to communicate to public board members on matters of public policy it can make those public appointees uncomfortable especially if they are unfamiliar with the organization's public policies. Former HAP Chair Howard Shapiro's policy of providing minimum information about board members on HAP's web site and limiting written communications by citizens to its board is the correct model for all of Portland's boards and commissions.

Analysis: Grade F
You'd think someone raised on professional politics, who acquired a very expensive law degree and is a partner in a law firm would have more respect for the civil rights of Americans. Apparently not.


Paul Leistner: http://www.leistnerforcitycouncil.com/
I support ensuring openness of decision-making and the accessibility of decision-makers to the public. Decision-makers on the PDC, BHCD, and HAP boards and other decision-making bodies should be accessible to the public. Phone and email addresses should be provided to them. Members of the public have the right to communicate directly to board members without the information being filtered by staff. This openness is an essential element to good decisions, legitimacy of government, and the public’s ability to hold government accountable.

Analysis: Grade A
Well said.


Randy Leonard: http://www.randyleonard.com/
I'm not afraid to deal with any citizen, in person, by mail, by phone, by email. They can have at me or my staff any time.

Analysis: Grade B
Not exactly a resounding affirmation of citizen rights under the First Amendment to free speech and access to elected and appointed officials but he does get points for letting them through anyway.


Tom Potter: http://www.tomformayor.org
Yes. As mayor I will require an email address and a postal address by which every board member can be contacted directly to be posted on all web sites of Portland's public boards and commissions. No staff person or chairperson of any Portland public board or commission will be permitted to censor written communication between citizens and any public board member.

Analysis: Grade A
Tom also gets it right.


Jim Francesconi: http://www.jimfrancesconiformayor.com/
Yes. I try to respond to all.

Analysis: Grade A
Jim may be tested on his commitment to the First Amendment in the future. I'm not totally convinced that he will stand up for these rights. He remained mute when former HAP Chair Howard Shapiro introduced precedent setting censorship between citizen and board. He remained mute when HAP Treasurer Richard Fernandez complained that he didn't want to be bothered with public policy email. Francesconi is on the elected city council that approved these people as appointed public officials given the power to spend $90,000,000 of our money. If they persist in denying the civil rights of Portland citizens then Jim Francesconi and his colleagues must exercise their oversight responsibility and are obliged to correct the bad behavior displayed by public officials the city council has appointed or remove them from office. But Jim did say "Yes" to this question, so for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt.


Question #2
The city of Portland already has a public housing policy which supports distribution not concentration of its low-income housing clients. The federal government supports distribution not concentration of low-income housing clients. Academic research supports distribution not concentration of low-income housing clients. Matt Hennessee, Chairperson of the Portland Development Commission, has suggested a cap on the number of low-income clients per neighborhood. Given the overwhelming evidence and support in favor of distribution not concentration of its low-income housing clients a new, more specific public housing policy needs to be established for both the city of Portland and the Housing Authority of Portland. A policy with goals that can easily be measured and observed by the general public to assure that public fund expenditures are spent in support of the public policy goals not against them. This can readily be accomplished by neighborhood map based accounting.

Do you support a public housing policy goal for all of Multnomah county's 117 neighborhoods that establishes SIX PERCENT of the total population of any and every neighborhood to include public housing clients with no neighborhood having fewer than THREE PERCENT and no neighborhood having more than NINE PERCENT of public housing clients?

Sam Adams: http://www.samforpdx.com
Our city must invite the public to dicuss, debate and review Portland's public housing policy goals and then adopt a public housing policy goals that are both fair and quantifiable. Ordinary citizens must easily be able to determine if public housing policy goals match public housing program practices. The city of Portland must adopt neighborhood map based accounting to prove that its public housing policy is not at variance with its public housing practice. Accountability is essential.

Analysis: Grade A
Sam continues to get it right. Accountability is essential.


Nick Fish: http://www.gofish2004.com/
I supported former HAP Chair Howard Shapiro's opposition to neighborhood map based accounting of HAP's low-income housing clients. To do otherwise would have exposed the fact that HAP does concentrate its clients in a select few neighborhoods and has no intention of changing and upsetting the status quo. Many of my supporters would not look kindly upon even three in a hundred low-income public housing clients in their neighborhoods.

Analysis: Grade F
Being accountable to the voters and taxpayers is obviously not high on Nick Fish's list of priorities.


Paul Leistner: http://www.leistnerforcitycouncil.com/
I support the City’s goals to distribute affordable housing services and opportunities throughout the community. The concentration of affordable housing does not well serve the households receiving the services or the general community. To measure the success of this strategy, HAP and other agencies must track the geographic distribution of affordable housing and make this information available to the public in a format that allows people to meaningfully understand and comment on the policies. To this end, I support providing this information according to formal neighborhood association boundaries.

Analysis: Grade A
Right on Paul. The government must not only be accountable but the people must be able to see and easily understanding the results of that accountability.


Randy Leonard: http://www.randyleonard.com/
I haven't spent much time thinking about public housing. It's not my bureau. But if someone else brings it up I'll take a look at it.

Analysis: Grade C
For the commissioner who claims to be the, "voice for the working class" on the Portland city council, Leonard seems to have missed the fact that it is the working class neighborhoods that have the highest concentration of public housing. Is this what Leonard thinks "looking out" for the working class means? With friends like this who needs . . .

This answer provides the perfect example of why Portland should change its form of government to a city manager or strong mayor. Every member of the city council should be thinking about all aspects of public policy not management. But, Randy says he'll keep an open mind (not exactly aggressive support for "his" working class neighborhoods) if someone else does the work. That's barely worth a passing grade.


Tom Potter: http://www.tomformayor.org
Yes. I have long opposed discrimination in any form. Portland should adopt a public housing policy which does not discriminate against any neighborhood. A fair and even handed approach is best. As mayor I will require that evidence of compliance to Portland's public housing policy be regularly presented to the council for public comment and review using neighborhood map based accounting.

Analysis: Grade A
The Portland police bureau has an extensive web site which lists crime statistics by neighborhood and sometimes by block. This is a great public service and the Portland police are to be congratulated on this excellent work. Tom rightly reasoned that if the cops can do this then the public housing folks should also make their data available by neighborhood.


Jim Francesconi: http://www.jimfrancesconiformayor.com/
Yes. All neighborhoods should accept some public housing, but the maximum may need to be higher that the one you set on question 2.

Analysis: Grade A
Once again I remain skeptical of Jim's answer. I have seen no evidence that Francesconi supports neighborhood map based accounting which is the only way to start bringing accountability to the entire public housing process. It is the only way to prove that the city's goal of distribution not concentration of public housing clients into certain neighborhoods is even being attempted much less succeeding. But, once again, Jim says, "Yes." So, we should take him at his word but then start counting the days until he actually takes some official action which supports his rhetoric. After all, he's not just a candidate, he is currently serving on the Portland city council. He can start the ball rolling any time he choses. The clock starts now Jim.


Question #3
Which presidential candidate will you vote for and publicly support because he will have the greatest positive impact on the City of Portland and its citizens? Explain.

Sam Adams: http://www.samforpdx.com
John Kerry. Citizens of Portland support quality education and a quality environment. The Bush administration has consistently acted to eviscerate environmental protections. Dick Cheney still refuses to tell us which corporations not only influenced national energy policy but wrote that policy for their own benefit. The No Child Left Behind act has been woefully underfunded putting additional pressure on Portland's already stressed school system. Bush's policies may be good for Crawford, Texas but they are bad for Portland, Oregon.

Analysis: Grade A
Excellent.


Nick Fish: http://www.gofish2004.com/
I'm voting for John Kerry. George Bush has failed to give serious attention and funding to protect us from terrorist attacks in container shipping at the Port of Portland docks. His ineffective color coded terrorist warning system puts a severe strain on limited city resources which are not reimbursed by the federal government. Regardless of my close ties to New York Republican Governor George Pataki and the New York Republican political establishment, I don't think Portland can afford another four years of George W. Bush.

Analysis: Grade A
Fish may still be the new kid on the block but he got this right.


Paul Leistner: http://www.leistnerforcitycouncil.com/
I plan to vote for and support John Kerry. I believe that another four years of George Bush would severly damage many of the progressive programs and values that have been instituted in our society since the New Deal. We should be rising to higher levels of social, economic, and environmental justice and sustainability not sliding backward through history.

Analysis: Grade A
Right on Paul.


Randy Leonard: http://www.randyleonard.com/
I'm a Democrat. I served in the legislature as a Democrat. I've watched the Republicans relentlessly try to destroy our state and our country. There's no way I'd vote for a Republican. John Kerry is my guy.

Analysis: Grade A
Can't argue with Randy's observations. John Kerry is the guy.


Tom Potter: http://www.tomformayor.org
John Kerry is my choice. The Bush administration has diminished the rights of Portlanders by forcing through the Patriot Act. George W. Bush's hostile attitude towards Americans who are gay goes against the spirit of Portland society. His opposition to hand gun control, which is supported by most police officers in the line of fire, continues to needlessly increase the potential for violence to the citizens of Portland. John Kerry is the only choice for Portland.

Analysis: Grade A
That's the right answer. Well done.


Jim Francesconi: http://www.jimfrancesconiformayor.com/
John Kerry

Analysis: Grade A
Not much of an explanation but certainly the right choice.


The preceding statements were consented to by each candidate as uncontroversial, uncontested and a true reflection of their opinions.*
* http://www.goodgrowthnw.org/GameRules.html